John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a few observations and questions that stem from the answers given. I was struck by the comment made by Dr. Boland in his concluding remarks that JobPath obviously did not work, that it damaged users and everyone in the workforce and that there could be liabilities downstream. That was a huge statement to make. I have said this is an investigation in the making and that we will come back to this issue because of the vast amounts of money involved and the High Court cases which stem from JobPath. That is only the beginning.

I want to touch on the issue of sanctions. This ties in with the need to get back to core values. Oversight and accountability are important, but the problem many others and I have is the perception that sanctions are imposed by Intreo officers. I know many fantastic people with real, core values who are working within Intreo offices and trying to stop people from getting into Turas Nua and who were opposed to privatisation from the outset. However, it was imposed without their input or consultation.

A paragraph in the document from WIT states:

While officially sanctioning decisions are made only by the Intreo office, in practice, in the experience of jobseekers, the recommendation of a sanction by a JobPath provider was a fait accompli. In other research where we have spoken to counter staff and case officers in welfare offices, the JobPath providers are described as deciding on sanctions.

That is very important because the Minister has said it is the decision of Intreo officers, yet all of the evidence I have and the evidence given here is that the decision taken depends on the nature of the email sent.

Either Mr. Rudd or Mr. Fagan mentioned the contracts and rolling sanctions. Whoever it was, reference was made to the fact that in the contract sanctions could only be imposed for up to nine weeks before the jobseeker had to be put back on benefit payments. Could United People send the relevant section to us?

In her initial contribution Ms Green spoke about PEX 1 and people who had been unemployed for three months and how critical it was to get them involved and make them more employable. We know that when JobPath was rolled out initially, its purpose was to have "an approach to employment activation which caters mainly for people who are long-term unemployed (over 12 months)". However, it has deviated completely from it. I am encountering increasing numbers of people who are short-term unemployed, for days or weeks, who have been referred to JobPath. That is an admission that the policy has failed. By virtue of the nature of the contract, JobPath is a monster which has to be fed continuously. It would be very useful for the committee if there was more evidence because time and again the Minister has said Jobpath is only for the long-term unemployed, but more and more we are seeing people who are short-term unemployed being fed into JobPath. This is about the private model, not the individual. Individuals who are short-term unemployed are being fed into it and it is easier because they are gaining employment and feeding the private companies the bonus that thereby accrues.